Russian invasion of Ukraine

[BobKowalski]

Foreign people cannot donate to any political party directly. They have to be a registered UK voter or donate via a UK company. The “Russians” (all three of them that made the vast majority of the donations, out of a country of 144m) two have publicly been strong critics of Putin and the other her husband possibly has some tentative links but has denied any of the money has come from Russian investments. But this just muddies the waters, think about it logically - the UK has been a very strong critic of Russia, particularly since Salisbury, it would seem this £2m in total hasn’t really yielded any “Russian Influence” has it?

If you really want to question any country about undue Russian influence you should start with Germany. The Russian state are rascals of that I have no doubt - but these individuals don’t have any real links to the state that make you think hmmmm.

Do you think the Labour Party are being influenced by the Chinese? To follow ypur logic; Gardiner has accepted £500k from Christine Lee, and employed her son as his diary secretary (this was a pretty stupid thing to do), she’s also been called out as a Chinese spy. Corruption or innocent?

Russian money and influence in the UK has been an issue for years. This from just 2018 after Salisbury. It is questionable how much effective action has been taken to curtail this since 2018, other than lots of rhetoric and making life a bit awkward for Chelsea’s Abramovich.

‘May has vowed to clamp down on Russian money but a report by parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee accused her government of failing to back up its rhetoric with credible action.

“There is no excuse for the UK to turn a blind eye as President (Vladimir) Putin’s kleptocrats and human rights abusers use money laundered through London to corrupt our friends, weaken our alliances, and erode faith in our institutions,” said committee chairman Tom Tugendhat.’

Russian 'dirty money' flowing through London damages UK: lawmakers

"Dirty" Russian money hidden in British assets and laundered through City of London financial institutions is undermining the government's efforts to take a tougher stance against Moscow's "aggressive foreign policy", UK lawmakers said on Monday.

www.reuters.com

 

[metalblue]

Russian money and influence in the UK has been an issue for years. This from just 2018 after Salisbury. It is questionable how much effective action has been taken to curtail this since 2018, other than lots of rhetoric and making life a bit awkward for Chelsea’s Abramovich.

‘May has vowed to clamp down on Russian money but a report by parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee accused her government of failing to back up its rhetoric with credible action.

“There is no excuse for the UK to turn a blind eye as President (Vladimir) Putin’s kleptocrats and human rights abusers use money laundered through London to corrupt our friends, weaken our alliances, and erode faith in our institutions,” said committee chairman Tom Tugendhat.’

Russian 'dirty money' flowing through London damages UK: lawmakers

"Dirty" Russian money hidden in British assets and laundered through City of London financial institutions is undermining the government's efforts to take a tougher stance against Moscow's "aggressive foreign policy", UK lawmakers said on Monday.

www.reuters.com

All irrelevant. Do you think Russian money has influenced the UK’s strategy when it comes to Russian policy? And if so, how and when?

 

[metalblue]

76k currently, with a view to reducing further. Give it another decade and we will have more people attending No.10 parties than in the Army.

The Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, announced on March 22 that the army will be reduced to 72,500 by 2025. This is set out in the Defence in a Competitive Age command paper.

This means the existing target of 82,000 personnel, set in 2015, has been scrapped.

UK Army to be reduced to 72,500

The existing target of 82,000 personnel, set in 2015, has been scrapped.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk

And this is why being in NATO and a very active contributor is strategically important to the UK.

No one in their right mind would suggest we go and fight the Russians on our own. But as @SWP's back rightly points out if we stuck just 100 UK troops on the front line - particularly if it was a NATO sanctioned deployment- it would make the Russians battle plans a lot more complex and way beyond the actually military might that 100 troops would bring. Not that I would suggest we should do either, as that’s one miscalculation away from a big mess.

 

[mat]

Boris Johnson defends taking money from Russian oligarchs

Boris Johnson has defended taking money from Russian oligarchs and insisted there is no evidence of Moscow interfering in British politics. Amid continuing scrutiny over Downing Street’s failure to publish a parliamentary report into Russian tampering, the prime minister denied that the delay was li

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[BobKowalski]

All irrelevant. Do you think Russian money has influenced the UK’s strategy when it comes to Russian policy? And if so, how and when?

I wouldn’t say Russian money pouring into the City laundromat is ‘irrelevant‘. Money buys political influence, that’s kind of how it works.

The UK resisted passing the Magnitsky Act, until Salisbury happened, so yes Russian money influenced UK Russian policy until they murdered UK citizens on UK soil, and they did that because Russia has no sense of proportion or ability to see that every action it takes makes their position worse.

You mentioned that Russian money came from a ‘critic’ of Putin as if that is okay. It isn’t. UK foreign policy should be determined on what is in the UK’s best interests, not based on how much money some pissed off Russian slips the Tory Party, or indeed, any Party.

 

[BobKowalski]

And this is why being in NATO and a very active contributor is strategically important to the UK.

No one in their right mind would suggest we go and fight the Russians on our own. But as @SWP's back rightly points out if we stuck just 100 UK troops on the front line - particularly if it was a NATO sanctioned deployment- it would make the Russians battle plans a lot more complex and way beyond the actually military might that 100 troops would bring. Not that I would suggest we should do either, as that’s one miscalculation away from a big mess.

I have no issue with the UK stance on Ukraine. Wallace seems to be competent, which is a rarity these days. Clearly, he has no future in the Tory Party.

However the continual reduction of British Army numbers will bite at some point and no amount of spin about the ‘modern cyber soldier‘ is going to put boots on the ground when we most need them.

As for the strategic importance of NATO, again I would agree. But then so was EU membership given Putin is very keen on a divided and conflicted Europe.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

They seem to be taking their time with this invasion, it’s hardly going to take Ukraine by surprise giving them time to dig in and NATO to ship in more weapons and a carrier group to sit nearby.

 

[metalblue]

I wouldn’t say Russian money pouring into the City laundromat is ‘irrelevant‘. Money buys political influence, that’s kind of how it works.

The UK resisted passing the Magnitsky Act, until Salisbury happened, so yes Russian money influenced UK Russian policy until they murdered UK citizens on UK soil, and they did that because Russia has no sense of proportion or ability to see that every action it takes makes their position worse.

You mentioned that Russian money came from a ‘critic’ of Putin as if that is okay. It isn’t. UK foreign policy should be determined on what is in the UK’s best interests, not based on how much money some pissed off Russian slips the Tory Party, or indeed, any Party.

Money laundering and political donations are very different things, whatever the source. I do agree with you that donations are for political (or personal) influence but that is not necessarily a bad thing - unions are an example of political influence with good motives although I appreciate not always - and just because a donation comes from a national of a different country shouldn’t, on its own, give rise to any greater concerns - unless you’re some far right wing nut job who hates anything that’s not white and British (and something tells me that doesn’t describe you!!!).

Until we change the political funding model in the UK we have to accept that money will come from a variety of sources and so long as it is declared and there is no obvious inference of influence (say that when you’ve had a few drinks!) then we have to live with it - of course it is always open to question and should always be so. Personally I would listen to parties being funded by the tax payer but not sure how it would be anything other than maintaining the status quo - let’s say you and I wanted to set up a new political party - and SWP back wanted to fund it from his millions would that be barred? - puts me in mind of FFP and City really.

Global human rights violations and sanctions - I thought was being implemented at an EU level (which is always a bit of a challenge when any country can veto certain lists etc) so not really fair to say the UK could have done it any quicker at least until Brexit, happy to be corrected.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

All irrelevant. Do you think Russian money has influenced the UK’s strategy when it comes to Russian policy? And if so, how and when?

Chinese money certainly does.

Intelligence and Security Committee Foreign involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure: The implications for national security Cm 8629 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

Erm no, not really. The British Army is so depleted these days Nato no longer considers it fit for active front line operations. Recent analysis of military power in Europe has drawn the conclusion the Army would be ineffective against the Russians, and the Russians know it.

What a ridiculous statement to say